mjm wired ;)  

And the cycle is complete... Today Mozilla released version 3.5 of their popular Firefox web browser. The browser came with a exclusive Private Browsing mode which by their own words claims: "won't leave a single browsing fingerprint behind for others to discover". As silly as that statement is, Firefox is actually the 3rd browser to ship with such a feature. Chrome by Google (ironically Mozilla's primary "benefactor") introduced "Incognito Mode" last year, and even Microsoft's IE8 beat Mozilla with "InPrivate Browsing" in it's release several month's ago. (Opera I love you too, but you don't have this feature ... yet)

All this privacy feature does is prevent the client (that's you!) from recording basic web history, cookie data or cached versions of web pages (included images). Many were quick to point out that this would be ideal for browsing those "mature" websites that you wouldn't want others to know about. First of all, private or not, there are usually at least 3 entities that can see what you're doing: you, your ISP, and the site you are visiting. I won't even try to bother to figure out if it is forensically impossible to detect anything you did while "privately browsing" (anybody know?).

Even with all that in mind, if your browser does not record your activity there are no rules about what your plugins record. Might those "mature" websites use video? Well surprise: Adobe Flash (which practically powers 99% of the video on the web) does in fact leave little tidbits of webby goodness somewhere deep in your personal computer profiles. Lets not forget an occasional Java applet? And I have no idea how what else people allow their browsers to load and run these days (ActiveX I hate you).

Anyways, I honestly don't think that browsing the web has become any more or less private with all these new releases of software. I just hope people don't get the wrong idea and get themselves into bizarre situations assuming their computer is doing something its not (or vice versa).

But hey, don't let this (possible) shortcoming detract from the many new features that the big browsers have been putting out. Great stuff to see, check it out - in "private" if you want.

I think it was during late 2004, that my younger brother said he wanted to buy a digital camera since he would be taking a trip to France. After a little bit of research (and seeing the ugly pictures from a co-worker's Sony camera), we both settled on a Canon PowerShot S410. I had a gift certificate from Best Buy, so I picked up S500 that Christmas (same camera but 5MP instead of 4.1MP). I have never regretted that purchase. For the past 4+ years my camera has taken some great pictures on various trips and vacations (especially my last India trip).

Unfortunately, last Christmas my S500 had developed a minor problem where every picture had either a purple bar or light pink/purple hue in all of the pictures. Luckily a few months previous to my younger brother's wedding, my youngest brother had picked up a PowerShot SD 880 IS which took some great pictures at the wedding. The only issue was that there were some moments that a better camera might have produced better pictures. So, reluctant to invest in an DSLR, my oldest brother bought a PowerShot SX10 IS which produced some amazing pictures at my youngest brother's wedding last month!

However, it became quite obvious that the SX10 might be inconvenient for quick pictures and trips when I needed to pack lightly. So I thought I would go ahead and purchase a new camera similar in size to my S500. However, before I did, I found a story about Canon Support on the Consumerist website. I thought I had nothing to lose in contacting tech support. Before I contacted them, I decided that I would be willing to pay ~$100 to have it fixed. Primarily because (1) I had accessories (case, spare batteries, 2 2GB Compact Flash cards) and (2) I would end up spending at least double for a new camera.

I finally got around to calling them 2 weeks ago on Monday (Jun 15). The tech support lady was quick to tell me that there was an advisory that did affect my S500. She also stated they would evaluate it and tell me the repair cost. So they emailed me a free UPS shipping label, and I sent in just my camera (no accessories) on Wednesday (Jun 17). The UPS tracker stated the camera arrived at their repair center on Friday (Jun 19). It wasn't until Monday (Jun 22) that I got an email stating that all repairs would be done free of charge. I was so happy. The final email I received was on Thursday (Jun 25) that the camera was fixed and shipped on FedEx Next Day Air. This last Friday my fixed camera was waiting for me after work. Great service for less than 2 weeks!

I didn't start out to write a "Canon Love Fest", but I can honestly say that there is nothing better than a company that produces good products and (more importantly) has great customer service. My biggest regret was not contacting tech support earlier.

As of today, my trial subscription to XM Radio ended. When I got it a few months ago, I thought I would barely use it. But after a while, I found it quite refreshing to be able to arbitrarily pick between different genre's of music or news or even sports. And the best part was, that it was significantly easier than pulling out my MP3 player and messing with all the cables. Apparently the XM sales people have been calling for weeks, but I decided not to renew. Not that the thought never crossed my mind. Lately I've been trying to trim my commute so I've been spending a little less time in the car. Had my daily driving been as bad as some of the routes of yesteryear, then I think for sure I would have paid out that $10 (or possibly $13) per month rate. Convenience has a price tag!

For now, I will either have to get a new 3.5 aux cable (the old one is way too long!) or burn some MP3's to CD and pop it in the CD player. Either way, I will miss Lady Gaga being overplayed on XM 20 on 20. Bummer, I know.

I saw the new Star Trek movie over a week ago, but I was too busy to post a review (or rant).

The movie by itself was an entertaining movie. It opened with a really well-done amazing epic scene and from there it flowed smoothly and didn't have too many dull points or lags in the story. I think as a science fiction movie, it was definitely above average, and in that you had semi-decent actors with countless cheesy lines, massive special effects, plot that almost kinda makes sense and of course a perfect setting for sequels. Perfect for a summer action flick.

Now, as a "Trekkie", who has watched every show and movie since the mid-80's, I was greatly disappointed. Anyone who has watched as much as I have is completely knowledgeable that none of the history really makes sense. Each show and movie was made in such different times that none of the time lines really make any sense and there are countless inconsistencies about how the "future" is supposed to play out. So in all fairness anyone trying to make such a movie would run in to these problems. So I ask: "Why bother?" Can we please stop with the prequels?

The story itself from the "Star Trek" universe essentially is a "fork" from the original story. So basically employing the most over used technique: time travel, a new "time line" was created, thus allowing the writers to do what ever they wanted. For 2 basic reasons: 1. bring in a new generation of fans and 2. make it more sexy. Or maybe they want sexy new fans? Hmmm, I don't know but in any event, I think this is the perfect formula for failure.

So what happens in the movie? I don't want to spoil it, but I will spoil one thing: my impression of the main characters.

• Sulu - had no real role, a Japanese character played by a Chinese actor? ("Harold" nonetheless)
• Checkov - what a terribly annoying fake accent and goofy acting as well, also did I mention the bad accent?
• Uhura - the slight romantic subplot was quite disconcerting
• Scotty - quite entertaining and great comic relief, but I don't see how he could end up to be our loveable "Mr. Scott"
• McCoy - well done and really fit nicely

Which brings us to our final two: Kirk and Spock. I personally think Spock was the most annoying role. There was a bit too much emphasis on him and the acting was so flat and his wannabe Vulcan Voice was very vexing to my ears. And our man Kirk. I must admit he was the only redeeming aspect. He was totally refreshing and still completely believable. I liked his dynamic with probably everyone except Spock. Overall mixed casting for the whole crew, but I guess acceptable.

Anyways, I think I was a bit more satisfied with my older Star Trek, warps and all (laugh its a joke). I don't have very positive view of seeing "Star Trek Action Figures" or "Star Trek Happy Meals" at McDonald's. If this is the resurrection of the Star Trek franchise, I think I might just check out here. When the obvious sequels come out, I don't think I will care to watch them. ... Unless maybe, just maybe, if someone forces me into a theater and pays for my ticket.

Last weekend I was the best man for my youngest brother's wedding. Just like my other brother's wedding last January, I really didn't know how things would play out. I'm trying to think of something cheeky to write about the event, but it would appear that I spent all my wit during the best man toast and all my gusto on the dance floor. Of course I did nothing to upstage my brother, who by the way, happened to use my formula for his token of thanks. No bother, what is an older brother for, if you can't steal some of his ideas. But in all honesty, it was a pretty fun event (I forgive him for picking a live band). The finishing touches were interesting: the tuxedos, stretch limo, horse drawn carriage and cheesy videography, but I'm sure some unnamed people might have thought it was a bit over the top. Oh well, who am I to judge someone on how they spend half a year's income on a half a day's event.

I guess my only regret was I didn't drink enough. For the few people who may have witnessed me taking a shot of nasty liquor with a dead worm in it - no regrets, even if I had a taste of rotting wood in my mouth for a few hours. I'm no party pooper.

There were plenty of happy faces that night. And okay, I can admit it, maybe mine was among that crowd.

I have come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as job security. Given the current economic situation, I am pretty sure I am not alone. If I were evaluating a position for employment, it would be the last criteria I would use to assess the quality of the job. Someone once told me that job security causes one to neglect his or her own personal development. Somehow, subconsciously, I have always believed that. I think its rather naive to think that an individual education halts when he gets a college diploma or higher degree. Even worse is the notion that all that learning is sufficient to guarantee someone a prosperous career for the rest of their life.

Some people do beleive that there is great potential to "learn on the job", however I question the value of that learning. Corporations generally expect their employees to revel only in what they have to offer - whether it is obsolete technology or antiquated business models. And, for the right paycheck, most will do just that. However what happens when one realizes that years of dedication to a dieing product or diminishing market shows no future promise? Does dedication mean anything at all?

It seems logical that seniority and experience in a company hold some value. If one has done the same thing for so long don't they become an expert? Maybe, but consider the alternate view: If that person is such an expert he or she may be doomed to always work on the exact same thing, because they have made themselves "irreplaceable" and their very career depends on that product to always exist. Is that secure? Or just as plausible: what if someone of 3 years is just as competent as someone of 10? How much time does it take to realize there is only so much potential in one subject? Something about all your eggs ...

Once upon a time, young professionals could join a company and dedicate their entire lives to the career that ensued. They would be mostly content and retire happy. However somewhere in the past few decades greed and corporate malfeasance has completely eroded the value of the employee: the basic building block of any company. And even sadder is that people, as employees, have taken so long to recognize this. Neglecting to learn new skills or focus on personal development, they may find themselves no better off than the same companies who laid them off. The exact companies struggling to survive in the current economic crisis.

There is one thing I have come to realize over the past few years, and that is the fallacy of expecting someone else to guarantee your career. While not all companies are failures, they are all subject to the same trends and changes that are ultimately unpredictable. It is each and everyone's own responsibility to ensure their own success whatever that may require. All the years of your professional life should be for preparing for what comes next, not what has been. Investing in yourself may be the best decision you will never come to regret.

U2 announced their tour schedule about 3 weeks ago. The tour started in Europe but only had 4 confirmed dates for the US in September. There were also some unconfirmed locations later, but there was no Michigan location in any of the cities listed. I was a little upset at first (I still am), but then I looked at the proposed stage layout. The concept is basically that there is a full 360 degree view of the band on stage, which basically means there will be many more great floor spots to get a closer experience (in 2005, I was on the floor close to the stage). I guess I could beleive that not every venue could accommodate such a setup, but it does not make it any less disappointing.

Yesterday, the band announced 5 additional cities, as well as 2nd shows for Chicago, Boston and New York (in 2005, a 2nd show was added for Detroit as well). Most of these tickets go on sale this coming Monday (April 6th) morning. I don't think I should hold out for a Detroit date, and if I really want to see them again I need to pick a city. I have friends and/or family in almost every major spot, time to call up some people.

In other news, I did get my copy of the CD. I hate to admit that I keep clicking "Next" on majority of the tracks. I wanted to encourage fans to download a copy (Amazon had it for $4) but I forgot. Anyways, regardless of their somewhat flat album, the one thing I know first-hand is that U2 is highly entertaining on stage and sound absolutely great live. I guess that's worth the price of admission.

I don't feel the need to discuss or debate the merits of the decision to buy an American made versus a foreign made vehicle. The purchasing process of the American individual has never been a rational thing. The point I do want to make is the rare opportunity that this economic situation has afforded to people who might be in the market to buy a new car.

Prior to the financial meltdown that started at the end of 2008, one of the major selling points for people who purchased American was that some sort of incentive would make the price of a new car incredibly attractive when compared to a foreign alternative. The much sought after "Employee Discount" offered by the BIG 3 reduced prices down 10-15% but this was not available to everyone. Currently even offers of an Employee Discount do not seem to impress car buyers. Manufacturers have been offering "Employee Plus" discounts, cash back offers and 0% financing but that still fails to make a serious improvement in sales.

It is difficult to pinpoint the precise reason for the hesitation to purchase. Some claim it is the break down in credit markets and banks which hurts financing - since no one really buys a car fully in cash. Others claim that the fear of bankruptcy adds uncertainty to the validity of warranties. If you are an otherwise responsible consumer neither of those reasons should be a deterrent to buying.

In yesterday's announcement by President Obama, he stated the administration would back US Manufacturer's warranties. In any other situation, I would not be in favor of the government taking this position, but I cannot ignore this huge plus to consumer confidence. Additionally the administration re-iterated a point in its February 2009 Stimulus Package that stated that local and state taxes on a new car will be a deduction.

If you were or are considering a new car, do seriously think of the value of an American Automobile. With incentives some cars have dropped well below "fair" prices in 2008. If you know someone in the US automobile industry I'm sure they would help you get an Employee Discount or some other comparable reduction. (Ask around, I'm sure you can find someone who knows somone.) For savvy consumers it is not impossible to walk away paying 25% less than MSRP for a brand new 2009 vehicle.

And for more frugal buyers who would typically buy used cars: used car prices have actually risen. In some cases 2008 used cars can cost more than the "incentiv-ized" 2009 same models. Also consider the limiting (or non existing) warranties that come with used cars.

I should be very clear: I do not think people should buy a car just to support the US Automotive Industry. Don't be irresponsible, if you do not need a new car, simply do not buy one. However seriously consider if you wish to take advantage of some of the best values in US automobile purchasing in recent history. The math for once is completely in favor of the consumer.

Update: My mistake, I misinterpreted the tax deduction as a credit.